2. Kind on the epistemic role of imagination

According to Kind (Reference Kind, Kind and Kung2016; Reference Kind, Macpherson and DorschForthcoming), just because imagination is under the imaginer's volitional control, it doesn't follow that it cannot teach us anything about the world. More specifically, she tells us that as long as the “imaginative project” satisfies (or at least comes close to satisfying) a couple of important conditions, it can justify empirical belief in propositions about how the world actually is. Paraphrasing a bit, the conditions are as follows:

Having thus informed us about conditions under which imagination can justify belief about how the world is, in order to support her view, Kind draws our attention to the animal scientist and inventor Temple Grandin. Grandin reportedly has an amazing ability to visually imagine how things work. Moreover, as Kind tells us, in her design process she uses her imagination much in the same way designers nowadays use three-dimensional computer simulations, and supposedly with no less efficiency. One of the inventions Grandin developed in this way was a new dip vat design with the purpose of making it easier to rid cows of parasites. Before Grandin's invention, cows entering the dip vat would often panic, making things difficult for both the animals and the farmers. However, according to Kind,

Moreover, Grandin confidently believed in the efficiency of her new design, even before she saw it in action. Kind lists three propositions it is plausible to think that Grandin believed after imagining the new dip vat design:

And, Kind tells us, it seems plausible that Grandin's beliefs were justified. Also, if we consider someone running a computer simulation of Grandin's new dip vat design, showing cows peacefully entering and being immersed in the pesticide, watching the simulation does appear to provide justification for belief in the three propositions above. And since computer simulations are sufficiently similar to what Kind calls “imaginative simulations” – especially Grandin's – the same is true of them too. (See Kind Reference Kind, Macpherson and DorschForthcoming: 11–12.)

3. Reply: Imagination and the distinction between propositional and doxastic justification

Now, the problem with this argument is not that Grandin doesn't have justification for her beliefs. Rather, it is that it isn't her imagination that is responsible. A more plausible explanation of the scenario above is that Grandin's imagination contributes to the formation of her beliefs, but not to their justification. It is, I suggest, her background beliefs and perceptual experiences that really are responsible for justifying them.

However, Kind anticipates this objection and says that Grandin's background beliefs and perceptual experiences aren't sufficient for justifying her beliefs about the new dip vat design because she also needs an “understanding” of how cows will react to the new design. And, she says, it is her imagination that provides this understanding. In order to illustrate her point, Kind asks us to consider an owner of a cattle-handling facility with lots of knowledge about cows and dip vats. Indeed, the owner has “all the beliefs that are embedded in the programming of [a] computer simulation” that is able to demonstrate how cows are likely to react to any particular dip vat. Before the owner has run and observed the simulation, he lacks the necessary understanding for having justified beliefs about the efficiency of Grandin's new design. It is only after the simulation is run and he acquires a “cow's view” of the situation that his beliefs about the design are justified. And, moreover, since the computer simulation is sufficiently similar to Grandin's “imaginative simulation,” it is only after she is done imagining her design in action that her beliefs become justified. (See Kind Reference Kind, Macpherson and DorschForthcoming: 13.)

Here I agree that there is a difference in the justificatory status of Grandin's beliefs before and after the “imaginative simulation” and that the difference is due to the understanding it provides her with. However, I think the difference most plausibly should be understood as a difference in doxastic justification, not propositional justification. Let me elaborate.

Grandin's “imaginative simulation” is constrained by her background beliefs and perceptual experiences of cows and dip vats. It is an attempt to try to figure out what is going to happen when the cows go through the dip vat given the information that she already has about cows and dip vats. Likewise, the cattle facility owner's computer simulation tries to figure out what is going to happen when the cows go through the dip vat given the information that he has about cows and dip vats (recall that we're told his beliefs exhaust the programming of the simulation). Now, the simulations in these cases don't provide any new information about the world that isn't already somehow contained in Grandin's or the cattle facility owner's beliefs and experiences; they only try to figure out what their consequences actually are.Footnote ^8, Footnote ⁹ As a result, they don't confer any justification upon their beliefs about the efficiency of the new dip vat design. However, the simulations do provide them with an understanding that enables them to take advantage of the epistemic resources (i.e., the propositional justification) provided by their background beliefs and perceptual experiences. More specifically, they give a clear picture of what the consequences of their beliefs and experiences are, and, as a result, Grandin and the owner of the cattle facility are able to take advantage of the justification they already have by forming (doxastically justified) beliefs about the efficiency of the new design on their proper justificatory basis.Footnote ¹⁰ Grandin's imagination therefore helps her to convert propositional justification into doxastic justification, thereby improving the justificatory status of her beliefs, but without conferring any justification upon them.Footnote ¹¹

But wait a minute. Am I not contradicting myself when I say that Grandin's imagination helps produce doxastic justification and that it doesn't confer justification? Or am I perhaps saying that doxastic justification isn't bona fide justification? If you feel like these questions threaten my view, then you might have missed my point. First, doxastic justification – which, according to the traditional analysis, is propositional justification plus proper basing – is genuine justification; justifiably held belief is a real epistemic achievement. Second, claiming that a mental process (like imagination) that helps produce doxastic justification doesn't confer justification isn't contradictory. To see why that is so, consider Grandin's beliefs again. Prior to her imaginative simulation they are, I agreed, propositionally justified. In other words, she has justification to hold those beliefs, but without holding them in a justified manner. After her imaginative simulation, however, she is able to hold them in a justified manner. By using her imagination, she is able to properly base her beliefs on that which gives her propositional justification to hold them (which is what I mean when I say that it helps her take advantage of the epistemic resources she already has), but without conferring any new justification that she didn't already have upon them. My point is simply that imagination can contribute to the satisfaction of the proper basing condition, but not the propositional justification condition – both of which justifiably held belief requires.Footnote ¹²

So, to reiterate my argument, because the kind of realistic imaginings Kind focuses on simply don't provide any new information about the world, they cannot confer any justification upon empirical belief.Footnote ¹³ However, another problem Kind identifies as she responds to her imaginary interlocutor is that a denial that imagination can confer justification amounts to a denial that perception can confer justification. And, by modus tollens, since everyone should agree that perception can confer justification, they should also agree that imagination can too. This is how she puts her point:

The problem with this piece of reasoning, however, is that it begs the question against my response by assuming that imaginings are epistemically analogous to perceptual experiences insofar as they either both can or can't confer justification. But this assumption is entirely unmotivated. Perception can of course justify empirical belief; this much is not controversial. But whether the same holds true of imagination is controversial and cannot simply be established by saying that it does. Indeed, perception and imagination appear to be disanalogous in important ways that motivate the opposite view. Whereas perception does provide us with new information about what the world is like – visually, there seems to be a garden over here; auditorily, there seems to be dog over there – imagination doesn't. Indeed, one cannot simply imagine one's way to new information about the world that isn't already somehow contained in one's prior beliefs and perceptual experiences. Kind's response to the objection that imagination can contribute to the formation of empirical belief, but not to their justification, therefore fails.